Eranistes (The Beggar), or Polymorphus 1.1–1.8

… [it would have been right] for us to agree, and to keep the apostolic teaching undefiled. But since, for some reason I do not know, you have broken the concord and now put forward new doctrines to us, let us, if you agree, seek the truth together without any strife. Eranistes: We have no need of inquiry, for we hold the truth exactly. Orthodoxos: Every one of the heretics has assumed this too; and indeed Jews and Greeks think they are champions of the doctrines of truth, and not only those who revere the teachings of Plato and Pythagoras, but also those of Epicurus's band, and those who are utterly godless and hold no belief at all. One ought not to be a slave to prejudice, but to seek the true knowledge. Eranistes: I am persuaded by the exhortation, and I accept the … Orthodoxos: Since, then, you readily accepted the first appeal, I ask you again not to entrust the search for the truth to human reasonings, but to seek out the footprints of the apostles and prophets and of the saints after them. For this is what travellers like to do when they have strayed from the highway: they examine the paths to see whether they bear footprints of any who have gone or come, of men, or horses, or asses, or mules; and when they find them, they track them like dogs, and do not let go until they recover the straight road. … beginning the discussion. Orthodoxos: Then let us first clarify the divine names (I mean substance, and hypostases, and persons, and properties), and know and define what difference they have from one another; and so then let us take up what follows. Eranistes: You have given the discussion a most excellent and most necessary preface. For when these are made clear, … Orthodoxos: Since, then, we have agreed that this must be done, answer, my friend. Do we say that God the Father, and the only-begotten Son, and the all-holy Spirit have one substance, as we were taught by the divine Scripture, both Old and New, and by the Fathers who assembled at Nicaea, or do we follow the blasphemies of Arius? Eranistes: We confess one substance of the holy Trinity. Orthodoxos: And do we think that hypostasis signifies something other than substance, or have we taken it to be another name for substance? Eranistes: Does substance have some difference from hypostasis? Orthodoxos: According to the wisdom from outside it has none; for substance signifies what is, and hypostasis what subsists. But according to the teaching of the Fathers, … the difference that the common has over against the particular, or the genus over against the species or the individual, is the difference that substance has with respect to hypostasis. Eranistes: Speak more clearly about genus and species and individual. Orthodoxos: We call “living being” a genus, for it signifies many things at once. It denotes both the rational and the irrational; and again there are many species of irrational beings: some winged, some amphibious, some that walk, some that swim. And each of these is divided into many: of those that walk, one is a lion, another a leopard, another a bull, and countless others. So too of the winged and of the others there are many species; yet of all these the genus is “living being,” and the species are those already named. So the name “human being” is a name common to this nature. For it signifies the Roman, the Athenian, the Persian, the Sarmatian, and the Egyptian, and in short all who share in this nature. But the name “Paul” or “Peter” no longer signifies what is common to the nature, but a particular human being. For no one who hears “Paul” runs in thought to Adam and Abraham and Jacob, but he thinks of this one alone whose name he heard. But one who hears simply “human being” does not fix his mind on the individual, but reckons with the Indian, the Scythian, the Massagete, and in a word every race of human beings. And not only nature teaches us this, but also the divine Scripture. For God said, it says, “I will wipe out the human being whom I formed from the face of the earth.” He said this of very many myriads; for more than two thousand two hundred years had passed after Adam when he brought the total destruction of the flood upon human beings. So too blessed David says, “A human being, being in honor, did not understand,” accusing not this one or that one but … the nature common to all human beings. And countless such things can be found, but one need not draw it out.

Eranistes: The difference between the common and the particular has been clearly shown; but let us return to the discussion of substance and hypostasis. Orthodoxos: Just as, then, the name “human being” is a name common to this nature, so we have understood the divine substance to signify the holy Trinity, and hypostasis to indicate a person, for example that of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit. For we say that hypostasis, person, and property signify the same thing, following the definitions of the holy Fathers. … Orthodoxos: Whatever, then, is said of the divine nature is common to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, for example “God,” “Lord,” “Creator,” “Almighty,” and whatever is like these. Eranistes: They are indisputably common to the Trinity. Orthodoxos: But whatever indicates the hypostases is no longer common to the holy Trinity, but belongs to that hypostasis whose property it is. For example, the name “Father” and “Unbegotten” are proper to the Father; and again, the name “Son,” and “Only-begotten,” and “God the Word” do not denote the Father, nor the Holy Spirit, but the Son. And “the Holy Spirit” and “the Paraclete” indicate the hypostasis of the Spirit. Eranistes: Does not the divine Scripture, then, call both the Father and the Son “Spirit”? Orthodoxos: It has called both the Father and the Son “Spirit,” signifying by this the incorporeal and uncircumscribed character of the divine nature; but it gives the name “Holy Spirit” to the hypostasis of the Spirit alone. Eranistes: This too is beyond dispute. Orthodoxos: Since, then, we have said that some things are common to the holy Trinity and others proper to each hypostasis, do we say that the name “immutable” is common to the substance, or proper to some hypostasis? Eranistes: Immutability is common to the Trinity. For it is not possible for part of the substance to be mutable and part immutable. Orthodoxos: You have spoken excellently. For just as mortality is common to human beings, so immutability and unalterability are common to the holy Trinity. Therefore the only-begotten Son too [is immutable], just as the Father who begot him, and the Holy Spirit. … Orthodoxos: How, then, do you bring forward that saying of the Gospel, “The Word became flesh,” and attach change to the immutable nature? Eranistes: We do not say that he became flesh by change, but as he himself knows. Orthodoxos: If he is not said to have become flesh by taking flesh, one of two things must be said: either that he underwent change into flesh, or that he appeared so in seeming, while in true reality he was God without flesh. … and this is the opinion of the Manichees. But we were taught, as is agreed, that God the Word was made flesh. Orthodoxos: What do you understand by “was made flesh”? Taking flesh, or being changed into flesh? Eranistes: What we have heard the evangelist saying: “The Word became flesh.” Orthodoxos: And how do you understand “became”? Eranistes: He became flesh not by undergoing change into flesh, but, as I have already said, as he knows. And we know that all things are possible to him. For he changed the water of the Nile into blood, and day into night, and showed the sea as dry land, and the waterless desert … the prophet saying: “All that the Lord willed, he did, in heaven and on earth.” Orthodoxos: The Maker remodels creation as he wills; for it is mutable and follows the nod of the one who created it. But he himself has a nature immutable and unalterable. For this reason the prophet says of the creation, “He who makes all things and changes them,” but of God the Word the great David says, “But you are the same, and your years will not fail.” And again God himself says of himself: “I am, and I have not changed.”

Eranistes: One must not search into hidden things. Orthodoxos: Nor be wholly ignorant of what has been revealed. Eranistes: The manner of the incarnation escapes me; but I have heard that the Word became flesh. Orthodoxos: If he became flesh by being changed, he has not remained what he was before; and this is easy to learn from many images. For sand of a certain kind, when it meets fire, first becomes fluid, then sets into glass, and together with the change it takes on its name … Orthodoxos: And the fruit of the vine, which we call a grape cluster, once we have pressed it, we call no longer a grape cluster but wine. … Orthodoxos: And the wine itself, when it has turned, we are accustomed to call no longer wine but vinegar. … Orthodoxos: So too, when we burn and dissolve stone, we call it … And countless such things can be found which together with the change … Orthodoxos: If, then, you say that God the Word underwent change into flesh, why do you not call him flesh rather than God? For a change of name fits the alteration of nature. For if, where the things that are changed have some kinship with what they were before (for vinegar is somehow close to wine, and wine to the fruit of the vine, and glass to sand), these take other names after the alteration, then where the difference is infinite, as great as that of a gnat compared with the whole creation, visible and invisible (for so great, or rather much greater, is the gap between the nature of flesh and the Godhead), how is it possible for the former name to remain after the change? Eranistes: I have often said that he became flesh not by change, but, remaining what he was, he became what he was not. Orthodoxos: But this “became,” unless it is made clear, hints at change and alteration. For if he did not become flesh by taking flesh, he became flesh by being changed. [Eranistes:] “The Word became flesh,” it says. Orthodoxos: You seem either to be ignorant of the divine Scripture or, knowing it, to be acting in bad faith. But I will either teach you if you are ignorant, or refute you if you are acting in bad faith. Answer, then: do you confess that the teaching of the divine Paul is spiritual? … Orthodoxos: And do you say that the same Spirit worked both through the evangelists and through the apostles? Eranistes: So I say; for so I was taught by the apostolic Scripture: “For there are varieties of gifts,” it says, “but the same Spirit.” And again: “All these are worked by one and the same Spirit, who distributes to each individually as he wills.” And again: “Having the same Spirit of faith.”

Orthodoxos: You have brought forward the apostolic testimonies at the right moment. If, then, we say that the teachings both of the evangelists and of the apostles are of the same Spirit, hear the Apostle … spoke thus: “For surely it is not angels that he takes hold of, but he takes hold of the seed of Abraham.” Answer, then: what do you understand by the seed of Abraham? Did not the seed of Abraham have what Abraham had by nature? Eranistes: Not everything. For Christ did no sin. Orthodoxos: Sin is not of nature but of evil choice. For this reason I did not say without qualification “what Abraham had,” but “what he had by nature,” that is, a body and a rational soul. Say, then, clearly whether you agree that the seed of Abraham is both body and rational soul. If you do not, here too you agree with the nonsense of Apollinarius. But I will compel you to agree to this from another direction as well. Tell me, then: do the Jews have a body and a rational soul? Eranistes: Clearly they have. Orthodoxos: When, then, we hear the prophet saying, “But you, Israel my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen …,” we understand the Jews; do we not understand human beings composed of bodies and souls? … Orthodoxos: So too the seed of Abraham is not soulless, nor mindless, but has everything that … nature … Orthodoxos: But he who says that God the Word was changed into flesh does not even speak of one Son. For flesh by itself is not the Son. But we confess one Son, who took hold of the seed of Abraham, according to the divine Apostle, and accomplished the salvation of human beings. But if you are not content with the apostolic … Eranistes: Then we are saying that the apostles spoke contrary to one another. For “The Word became flesh” seems somehow contrary to “He takes hold of the seed of Abraham” … things that agree seem contrary. For to those who use sound reasoning they do not appear so. For the divine Apostle teaches that God the Word became flesh not by being changed, but by taking hold of the seed of Abraham. And at the same time he recalls the promise made to Abraham. Or do you not remember the promises given to the patriarch by the God of the universe? … Orthodoxos: When he led him out of his father's house and commanded him to come into Palestine, did he not say to him, “I will bless those who bless you, and those who curse you I will curse, and …” … Orthodoxos: … for you who do not understand, or who contend in vain … “In your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed”? Eranistes: I remember these promises. Orthodoxos: Then remember also the covenants that God made with Isaac and Jacob. For he gave these too the same promises, confirming to the second and third what was given first. Eranistes: I remember these too. [Orthodoxos: … the divine] Apostle says thus in the letter to the Galatians: “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as of many, but as of one, who is Christ,” showing most clearly the humanity of Christ, which sprang from the seed of Abraham, and the … promise to …

Eranistes: These things were said by the Apostle. Orthodoxos: These too are enough to settle the whole dispute raised about this. Yet I will remind you of another prophecy as well. Jacob the patriarch gave this blessing, which had been given to himself and to his father and grandfather, to his son Judah alone. He spoke thus: “A ruler shall not fail from Judah, nor a leader from his thighs, until he comes for whom it is laid up, and he is the expectation of the nations.” Or do you not accept this prophecy as spoken of Christ the Savior? Eranistes: The Jews misinterpret such prophecies; but I am a Christian, believing the divine words, and [I accept] the [prophecies] about our Savior … Orthodoxos: Since, then, you confess that you believe the prophecies, and say that what was foretold about our Savior was divinely declared, learn from this the aim of the apostolic sayings. For, showing that the promises made to the patriarchs had reached their fulfilment, he uttered that wonderful saying, “For surely it is not angels that he takes hold of,” as if to say: The promise is without falsehood; the Master has brought the promises to their end; the spring of the blessing has been opened to the nations; God has taken hold of the seed of Abraham; through this he accomplishes the salvation promised from of old; through this he makes firm the expectation of the nations. Eranistes: Excellently [have you joined] the prophetic to the apostolic … Orthodoxos: So again the divine Apostle, reminding us of the benefit granted to Judah and showing that this too had received its fulfilment, cries out: “For it is evident that the Lord has sprung from Judah.” The prophet Micah and the evangelist Matthew did the same: the one spoke the prophecy, the other joined the testimony to the history. And the remarkable thing is that he says that the most obvious enemies of the truth plainly told Herod that the Christ is born in Bethlehem. “For it is written,” he says, “And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come forth for me a leader who will shepherd my people Israel.” But let us add what the Jews maliciously left out when they offered the testimony incomplete. For the prophet, having said, “From you shall come forth for me a leader,” added: “And his goings forth are from the beginning, from the days of eternity.” Eranistes: You have done excellently in setting down the whole testimony of the prophet. For it shows that the one [born] in Bethlehem is God. Orthodoxos: Not God only, but also human: human, as having sprung from Judah according to the flesh and been born in Bethlehem; God, as existing before the ages. For “From you shall come forth for me a leader” indicates the birth according to the flesh that took place in the last of the days; but “His goings forth are from the beginning, from the days of eternity” clearly proclaims the existence before the ages. So too the divine Apostle in the letter to the Romans, lamenting the change for the worse in the ancient good fortune of the Jews, and … of the divine promise and … “Whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed to the ages of ages. Amen.” And at the same time he showed him to be the Creator and Master and Ruler of all, as God, and sprung from the Jews, as human.

Eranistes: See, you have interpreted these things; what would you say to the prophecy of Jeremiah? For it proclaims him God only. Orthodoxos: Which prophecy do you mean? Eranistes: “This is our God; no other shall be reckoned beside him. He found out the whole way of knowledge and gave it to Jacob his servant and to Israel who is loved by him. After this he appeared on earth and lived among human beings.” In these words the prophet foretold nothing about flesh, nor about humanity, nor about a human being, but about God alone. Orthodoxos: Where, then, is the need of syllogisms? Do we say that the divine nature is invisible, or do we not believe the Apostle who says, “To the incorruptible, invisible, only [God]”? Eranistes: The divine nature is indisputably invisible. Orthodoxos: How, then, was it possible for the invisible nature to be seen without a body? Or do you not remember those apostolic sayings that teach clearly that the divine nature cannot be beheld? He says thus: “whom no human being has seen or can see.” If, then, the vision of the divine nature is impossible for human beings (and I say, for angels too), tell me how the one who cannot be beheld and is invisible was seen on earth. Eranistes: The prophet said that he was seen on earth. Orthodoxos: And the Apostle said, “To the incorruptible, invisible, only God,” and “whom no human being has seen or can see.” Eranistes: What, then? Does the prophet lie? Orthodoxos: Far from it! For both these words and those are of the divine Spirit. Eranistes: Let us, then, seek how the invisible one was seen. Orthodoxos: Do not bring me human reasonings and syllogisms. For I am persuaded by the divine Scripture alone. Eranistes: Accept no argument that is not confirmed by the testimony of Scripture. If you bring me the solution of the ambiguity from the divine Scripture, I will accept it and not contradict. [Orthodoxos:] … we made the saying clear through the apostolic testimony, and the divine Apostle showed us how the Word became flesh, saying expressly, “For surely it is not angels that he takes hold of, but he takes hold of the seed of Abraham.” The same teacher, then, will now also teach us how God the Word was seen on earth and lived among human beings. Eranistes: I am persuaded both by the apostolic and by the prophetic words. Show, then, as you promised, the interpretation of the prophecy. Orthodoxos: Writing to Timothy, the divine Apostle set down this too: “Confessedly great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.” It is clear, then, that the divine nature is invisible but the flesh visible, and that through the visible the invisible was seen, working the miracles through it and revealing its own power. For with his hand he fashioned the faculty of sight … and healed the man blind from birth. And again, he restored the power of hearing to the deaf man and loosed the bound tongue, using his fingers in place of an instrument and applying his spittle like a healing remedy. So again, by walking on the sea, he disclosed the omnipotence of the Godhead. Fittingly, then, the divine Apostle said, “God was manifested in the flesh.” For through it the nature that cannot be beheld appeared; through it the throngs of angels too saw it: “For he was seen,” he says, “by angels.” So, then, the nature of the bodiless beings too enjoyed this gift along with us.

Eranistes: Then even before the appearing of the Savior the angels did not see God? Orthodoxos: The Apostle said that, manifested in the flesh, he was seen by angels. Eranistes: But the Lord said, “See that you do not despise one of these little ones, the least; for truly I tell you that their angels every day see the face of our Father who is in heaven.” Orthodoxos: But the Lord again said, “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.” For this reason the Evangelist too cries out plainly, “No one has ever seen God,” and confirms the Lord's word: “For the only-begotten Son,” he says, “who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” And the great Moses, longing to see the invisible nature, heard the Master God himself say, “No one shall see my face and live.” Eranistes: How, then, shall we understand “Their angels every day see the face of your Father”? Orthodoxos: As we are accustomed to understand what is said of the human beings who were thought to have seen God. Eranistes: Speak more clearly; for I have not understood. … Is God, then, visible to human beings? Eranistes: Yet we hear the divine Scripture saying, “God appeared to Abraham by the oak of Mamre,” and Isaiah saying, “I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up.” And Micaiah says this same thing, and Daniel, and Ezekiel. And of Moses the lawgiver the history says that the Lord spoke to him as one would speak to his own friend. And the God of the universe himself said, “Mouth to mouth I will speak to him, in clear sight, and not in riddles.” What, then, shall we say? That they beheld the divine nature? Orthodoxos: By no means. For God himself said, “No one shall see my face and live.” Eranistes: Then those who said that they had seen God lied? Orthodoxos: Far from it! For they saw what it was possible for them to see. Eranistes: So the loving Master measures his revelations by the capacity of those who see? Orthodoxos: Certainly. And he made this clear through the prophet: “For I,” he said, “multiplied visions, and by the hands of prophets I was likened.” He did not say, “I was seen,” but “I was likened.” And a likeness does not show the very nature of what is seen. For not even the king's image shows the king's own nature, even if it preserves the king's features clearly …

Eranistes: That at least is obscure and unclear. Then neither did those who [received] the revelations see God's substance? Orthodoxos: Who is so mad as to dare to say this? Eranistes: Yet it is said that they saw. Orthodoxos: It is said. But we, using godly reasoning and believing the divine statements that cry out expressly, “No one has ever seen God,” … say that they saw not the divine nature but certain visions proportioned to their own capacity. … Orthodoxos: So, then, let us understand the angels too, when we hear that “every day they see the face of your Father.” For they do not see the divine substance, which is uncircumscribed, incomprehensible, inconceivable, and encompasses all things, but a certain glory [proportioned] to their … Eranistes: It is agreed that this is so. Orthodoxos: After the incarnation, however, he was seen by the angels too, according to the divine Apostle, using not a likeness of glory but a true and living [one], the covering of the flesh, as a kind of veil. “For God,” he says, “was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels.” Eranistes: This I have accepted as scriptural; but I do not accept innovations in names. … Eranistes: That of the veil. For what Scripture has called the Lord's flesh a veil? Orthodoxos: You seem not to read the divine Scripture very diligently; otherwise you would not have found fault with what we said by way of an image. For in the first place, the divine Apostle's saying that the invisible nature was manifested through flesh allows us to understand the flesh as a veil of the Godhead. Then, the divine Apostle clearly used this very name in the letter to the Hebrews. He says thus: “Having, then, brothers, confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, his flesh, and [having] a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith,” and what follows. … [Eranistes:] … [If you show] us another prophetic testimony too, calling the Lord's flesh plainly a robe and a garment, we will not contradict, and we will acknowledge our thanks. Orthodoxos: I will make you yourself bear witness to the truth of the promise. Do you know that, blessing Judah, [Jacob foretold] to his offspring the rule of Judah? “For a ruler shall not fail from Judah,” he said, “nor a leader from his thighs, until he comes for whom it is laid up, and he is the expectation of the nations.” And in what went before you agreed that this prophecy was divinely spoken about the Savior. … Orthodoxos: Remember, therefore, what follows. For he says in the same passage: “Whose coming the nations await; he will wash his robe in wine, and his garment in the blood of the grape.”